AW v Vice Chancellor, University of Newcastle [2008] NSWADT 86

AW v Vice Chancellor, University of Newcastle [2008] NSWADT 86

The evidence did not establish that the Vice Chancellor discussed the applicant's personal or health information with the applicant's mother. The applicant's alleged HIV status and possible need for counselling were health information, and his name and complaint allegations were personal information, but the relevant information was provided unsolicited in the context of his complaint. The University's internal use of that information by the Complaints Manager in discussing the complaint with relevant staff, the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic), and University Counselling was for the primary purpose of investigating and managing the complaint or was directly related to that purpose, and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Conduct Under Privacy and Health Records Legislation / Determined on the Papers After Respondent's Application to Dismiss and Application for Costs
Outcome
The Tribunal determined not to take any further action on the matter and made no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['information Protection Principles' 'health Privacy Principles' 'personal Information' 'health Information' 'use of Information' 'unsolicited Information' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'special Circumstances for Costs']
['privacy Law' 'health Records Privacy' 'administrative Law' 'costs'] ['information Protection Principles' 'health Privacy Principles' 'personal Information' 'health Information' 'use of Information' 'unsolicited Information' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'special Circumstances for Costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of Conduct Under Privacy and Health Records Legislation / Determined on the Papers After Respondent's Application to Dismiss and Application for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether telephone conversations between the Vice Chancellor and the applicant's mother occurred and involved discussion of the applicant's personal or health information." 'Whether discussions between the University Complaints Manager and University Counselling, the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic), and other University staff breached any Information Protection Principle or Health Privacy Principle.' 'Whether the application should be dismissed as misconceived or lacking in substance, or whether the Tribunal should determine not to take further action.' "Whether special circumstances warranted an order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish that the Vice Chancellor discussed the applicant's personal or health information with the applicant's mother. The applicant's alleged HIV status and possible need for counselling were health information, and his name and complaint allegations were personal information, but the relevant information was provided unsolicited in the context of his complaint. The University's internal use of that information by the Complaints Manager in discussing the complaint with relevant staff, the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic), and University Counselling was for the primary purpose of investigating and managing the complaint or was directly related to that purpose, and...

Court Disposition

The Tribunal determined not to take any further action on the matter and made no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['In accordance with section 55(2) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1989 the Tribunal determines not to take any further action on this matter.' 'No order as to costs.']